PDA

View Full Version : Frame change rule



jroberts5407
04-24-2005, 07:48 PM
I have a question about the endurance frame change rule that does not allow a frame change after the halfway point of the race. My question is why not allow a team to change frames after the halfway point? I'm relatively new at this but cannot think of a way in which a team could gain an advantage by doing so, which is I presume is the reason for the rule.

Due to the loss of laps (right ?) they will most likely be very far behind and out of contention. However if their A bike is not able to reenter the race at least they would have the option of bringing in the B bike and continuing to race. So I am wondering what the rationale behind the rule is.

Thanks in advance

BTW big thumbs up for moving the 8 hour endurance race at TWS to April. The cooler weather made the weekend much more enjoyable. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div>

jroberts5407
04-24-2005, 07:48 PM
I have a question about the endurance frame change rule that does not allow a frame change after the halfway point of the race. My question is why not allow a team to change frames after the halfway point? I'm relatively new at this but cannot think of a way in which a team could gain an advantage by doing so, which is I presume is the reason for the rule.

Due to the loss of laps (right ?) they will most likely be very far behind and out of contention. However if their A bike is not able to reenter the race at least they would have the option of bringing in the B bike and continuing to race. So I am wondering what the rationale behind the rule is.

Thanks in advance

BTW big thumbs up for moving the 8 hour endurance race at TWS to April. The cooler weather made the weekend much more enjoyable. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div>

Steve Breen
04-25-2005, 04:40 PM
John - since the frame change will always accompany a reset of the lap count for the team, if a team crashed 2/3 through the race and then pulled out their backup bike, they would actually lose laps in the process since there are only 1/3 the number of laps available to score.

I can think of other scenarios where a team could benefit by swapping after 1/2 way, but they seem less common than the above scenario.

Steve Breen
04-25-2005, 04:40 PM
John - since the frame change will always accompany a reset of the lap count for the team, if a team crashed 2/3 through the race and then pulled out their backup bike, they would actually lose laps in the process since there are only 1/3 the number of laps available to score.

I can think of other scenarios where a team could benefit by swapping after 1/2 way, but they seem less common than the above scenario.

David Branyon
04-25-2005, 06:37 PM
Steve,
I spoke with John about this at the track, so I think I maybe can speak for him on this one. I understand your point that swapping frames after the halfway point is usually not beneficial to the team. That is a different answer than why is it NOT ALLOWED. In other words, it's also not generally advantageous to disable one cylinder of your bike before you go out on the track, but of course there's not a rule against it. The question is, how would someone ever unfairly BENEFIT from changing frames after the halfway point, such that it is necessary to have a specific rule against it? It's just that they had some trouble and went to their back-up bike and got black-flagged which made us read the rule book and we got to thinking, "Wonder what made someone come up with a rule like that?" (Note: their black flag was not even directly related to this part of the rule... just ended up that we read the rulebook and got curious as to this one.)

If you had tons of trouble during the first half of a race and decided to go to your back up bike at the halfway-plus-a-minute point, and you think you can get more laps from that point forward than you did so far, who is hurt by your attempt? Or, let's say you are stupid and you have 100 laps in during the first three hours of a race and you crash and decide to go to the backup, with no realistic chance of topping your 100 laps. So what? You're only hurting yourself. Doesn't seem like there needs to be a rule.

We were figuring there must be some situation where someone could benefit from that, or maybe there was some historic reason for that rule or something... but we sure couldn't figure out what that situation might be.

David Branyon
04-25-2005, 06:37 PM
Steve,
I spoke with John about this at the track, so I think I maybe can speak for him on this one. I understand your point that swapping frames after the halfway point is usually not beneficial to the team. That is a different answer than why is it NOT ALLOWED. In other words, it's also not generally advantageous to disable one cylinder of your bike before you go out on the track, but of course there's not a rule against it. The question is, how would someone ever unfairly BENEFIT from changing frames after the halfway point, such that it is necessary to have a specific rule against it? It's just that they had some trouble and went to their back-up bike and got black-flagged which made us read the rule book and we got to thinking, "Wonder what made someone come up with a rule like that?" (Note: their black flag was not even directly related to this part of the rule... just ended up that we read the rulebook and got curious as to this one.)

If you had tons of trouble during the first half of a race and decided to go to your back up bike at the halfway-plus-a-minute point, and you think you can get more laps from that point forward than you did so far, who is hurt by your attempt? Or, let's say you are stupid and you have 100 laps in during the first three hours of a race and you crash and decide to go to the backup, with no realistic chance of topping your 100 laps. So what? You're only hurting yourself. Doesn't seem like there needs to be a rule.

We were figuring there must be some situation where someone could benefit from that, or maybe there was some historic reason for that rule or something... but we sure couldn't figure out what that situation might be.

Tom Anderson
04-25-2005, 08:55 PM
I didn't have a problem with the lost laps, I did have a problem with being black flagged. I could not fathom why it mattered since it seemed that we had to basically start over with zero laps. Not to mention that we paid for 8 hours- why not be allowed to finish the laps.

I do understand that it was our fault for not notifying scoring/grid that we did the frame change- ignorance is no excuse and I concede that.
I did understand that we would lose all of our laps to that point. I read the rules to say that after half-way, you lose all your previous laps if you do change frames.

We already lost 45 minutes because the bike stopped at the geographic center of the race track and didn't get back to the pits. That alone dropped us to last in class. So why get black flagged on top of it?

By the way, I do appreciate what Walter and Stewart do, this is not directed toward them. I am just trying to understand a little better.

The whole reason we bother to have a b frame is in case of problems like we experienced this weekend. The way the rules were enforced makes it seem like it will do us no good to maintain two bikes in order to be able to use one as a b frame.

Tom Anderson
04-25-2005, 08:55 PM
I didn't have a problem with the lost laps, I did have a problem with being black flagged. I could not fathom why it mattered since it seemed that we had to basically start over with zero laps. Not to mention that we paid for 8 hours- why not be allowed to finish the laps.

I do understand that it was our fault for not notifying scoring/grid that we did the frame change- ignorance is no excuse and I concede that.
I did understand that we would lose all of our laps to that point. I read the rules to say that after half-way, you lose all your previous laps if you do change frames.

We already lost 45 minutes because the bike stopped at the geographic center of the race track and didn't get back to the pits. That alone dropped us to last in class. So why get black flagged on top of it?

By the way, I do appreciate what Walter and Stewart do, this is not directed toward them. I am just trying to understand a little better.

The whole reason we bother to have a b frame is in case of problems like we experienced this weekend. The way the rules were enforced makes it seem like it will do us no good to maintain two bikes in order to be able to use one as a b frame.

jroberts5407
04-25-2005, 10:44 PM
I am still not sure my question was answered, and am in agreement with what Dave and Tom have written above. Again, why not allow a team to use the B bike after the halfway point if it does not hurt the other teams by creating a competitive advantage? The team has paid their money so why not let them keep racing despite whether or not they have a chance at winning.

Again like Dave said we saw the rule and cannot understand why it is there and are looking for some rationale or history behind the rule. If Tom had not been able to get the A bike running again we would have missed out on the last 2+ hours of the race. That is a lot of track time.

It seems like the loss of all previous laps penalty would be enough to discourage abuse of having a back up bike option.

jroberts5407
04-25-2005, 10:44 PM
I am still not sure my question was answered, and am in agreement with what Dave and Tom have written above. Again, why not allow a team to use the B bike after the halfway point if it does not hurt the other teams by creating a competitive advantage? The team has paid their money so why not let them keep racing despite whether or not they have a chance at winning.

Again like Dave said we saw the rule and cannot understand why it is there and are looking for some rationale or history behind the rule. If Tom had not been able to get the A bike running again we would have missed out on the last 2+ hours of the race. That is a lot of track time.

It seems like the loss of all previous laps penalty would be enough to discourage abuse of having a back up bike option.

Steve Breen
04-26-2005, 09:58 AM
Fellahs,

I don't know the precise history of the rule, but I'm asking around.

Discounting for the moment for argument's sake the scenario of a team that had a bad first 1/2 on their A bike and could benefit by switching to their B bike - are you saying you would prefer the track time itself over your points gained from the first half of the race, lowering your net points from the event?

Not debating the rule itself, really, just trying to understand your vantage point a bit better.

Steve Breen
04-26-2005, 09:58 AM
Fellahs,

I don't know the precise history of the rule, but I'm asking around.

Discounting for the moment for argument's sake the scenario of a team that had a bad first 1/2 on their A bike and could benefit by switching to their B bike - are you saying you would prefer the track time itself over your points gained from the first half of the race, lowering your net points from the event?

Not debating the rule itself, really, just trying to understand your vantage point a bit better.

jroberts5407
04-26-2005, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Steve Breen:
are you saying you would prefer the track time itself over your points gained from the first half of the race, lowering your net points from the event? </div></div>Yes using your scenario above, that is basically it. I mean if we are in 8th place already, with no hope of making the podium save a highly unlikey drop out of the top seven teams, then why not pull out the B bike and get in some track time, even if you lose overall points? Sure there is the season total to consider, but last weekend I was racing at a novice mid-pack level, so it was more about the fun than the finish. At any rate I think it should have been the team's decision,and not the rule book's decision.

Or, as another option, maybe even allow the team the option to keep their laps from the A bike and go out and run with tbe B bike just for the track time. The whole point is to maximize the track time without creating a competitive advantage from having the b-bike. I can understand not creating a situation where a team that can not afford a b-bike is at a disadvantage to a team that can. Plus you want the teams to be motivated to make sure the a-bike is in good shape for safety's sake.

However I think the loss of all previous laps, (or maybe the option of keeping your laps fron the a-bike and not gaining any additional laps once the b bike is used) is a severe enough penalty to motivate the teams to keep the A bike in good condition. In fact the loss of laps penalty is effectively more severe the farther you are into the race. Or if you opt to keep your a-bike laps and not accumulate any more with the b-bike, from a score standpoint the result is the same, no more laps earned. I think at any rate you would be required to report your intentions in advance of the switch to scoring, so you could not change your mind on how to be scored after the race is over. That would be confusing, and one more thing to deal with for the race officials.

Since our switch to the b-bike was after the halfway point, we could not even bring the b-bike onto the track regardless of what happened with scoring. At that point we did not care about the loss of laps. We just wanted to get the track time, especially with the loss of track time with the morning red flags. Per the rule we were not allowed to have the b-bike onto the track at all (black flagged), and had to fix the a-bike just to get on the track again, resulting in time lost when we could have been on the track. Plus if we could not fix the a-bike, our day would be over right then, with over three hours left in the race.

Hope my description makes sense. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

jroberts5407
04-26-2005, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Steve Breen:
are you saying you would prefer the track time itself over your points gained from the first half of the race, lowering your net points from the event? </div></div>Yes using your scenario above, that is basically it. I mean if we are in 8th place already, with no hope of making the podium save a highly unlikey drop out of the top seven teams, then why not pull out the B bike and get in some track time, even if you lose overall points? Sure there is the season total to consider, but last weekend I was racing at a novice mid-pack level, so it was more about the fun than the finish. At any rate I think it should have been the team's decision,and not the rule book's decision.

Or, as another option, maybe even allow the team the option to keep their laps from the A bike and go out and run with tbe B bike just for the track time. The whole point is to maximize the track time without creating a competitive advantage from having the b-bike. I can understand not creating a situation where a team that can not afford a b-bike is at a disadvantage to a team that can. Plus you want the teams to be motivated to make sure the a-bike is in good shape for safety's sake.

However I think the loss of all previous laps, (or maybe the option of keeping your laps fron the a-bike and not gaining any additional laps once the b bike is used) is a severe enough penalty to motivate the teams to keep the A bike in good condition. In fact the loss of laps penalty is effectively more severe the farther you are into the race. Or if you opt to keep your a-bike laps and not accumulate any more with the b-bike, from a score standpoint the result is the same, no more laps earned. I think at any rate you would be required to report your intentions in advance of the switch to scoring, so you could not change your mind on how to be scored after the race is over. That would be confusing, and one more thing to deal with for the race officials.

Since our switch to the b-bike was after the halfway point, we could not even bring the b-bike onto the track regardless of what happened with scoring. At that point we did not care about the loss of laps. We just wanted to get the track time, especially with the loss of track time with the morning red flags. Per the rule we were not allowed to have the b-bike onto the track at all (black flagged), and had to fix the a-bike just to get on the track again, resulting in time lost when we could have been on the track. Plus if we could not fix the a-bike, our day would be over right then, with over three hours left in the race.

Hope my description makes sense. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Bryan Norton
04-27-2005, 10:59 AM
The idea of the rule is to prevent teams from using Endurance as practice.

either using multiple bikes to practice, or splitting the endurance fee, and each rider using their own bike for x number of hours.

It is also very difficult to monitor and police frame changes. Allowing them after the halfway point can make it hectic on race director.

The spirit of the rule is mainly to prevent the first situation, which does occur even with existing rules.

Bryan Norton
04-27-2005, 10:59 AM
The idea of the rule is to prevent teams from using Endurance as practice.

either using multiple bikes to practice, or splitting the endurance fee, and each rider using their own bike for x number of hours.

It is also very difficult to monitor and police frame changes. Allowing them after the halfway point can make it hectic on race director.

The spirit of the rule is mainly to prevent the first situation, which does occur even with existing rules.

Steve Breen
04-27-2005, 11:38 AM
John,

I spoke to Walter regarding this last night, and the initial spirit of the rule comes from the WERA era and was intended more as a way to force the issue on preperation and racing with "the horse that you brought".

In other words, if you broke early on, at least you can get back in the game and salvage the day - but the backup bike should be a limited option, not a often used strategy.

It is quite possible this rule could revised in the future to accomodate the other scenarios folks are bringing up, but even so it would not happen midseason - it's important to keep things consistent during the season.

With regard to practice teams in endurance - this is fine under our current structure, so long as they follow the post 1/2 race rule and notify the race officials when they make the frame changes as to not confuse the scorers and race control.

If practice teams fail to follow the rules it could affect future rules to keep things fair for the teams that are actually competing in the series.

Steve Breen
04-27-2005, 11:38 AM
John,

I spoke to Walter regarding this last night, and the initial spirit of the rule comes from the WERA era and was intended more as a way to force the issue on preperation and racing with "the horse that you brought".

In other words, if you broke early on, at least you can get back in the game and salvage the day - but the backup bike should be a limited option, not a often used strategy.

It is quite possible this rule could revised in the future to accomodate the other scenarios folks are bringing up, but even so it would not happen midseason - it's important to keep things consistent during the season.

With regard to practice teams in endurance - this is fine under our current structure, so long as they follow the post 1/2 race rule and notify the race officials when they make the frame changes as to not confuse the scorers and race control.

If practice teams fail to follow the rules it could affect future rules to keep things fair for the teams that are actually competing in the series.

jroberts5407
04-27-2005, 03:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...and was intended more as a way to force the issue on preperation and racing with "the horse that you brought".
</div></div>Yep makes sense, I thought that was possibly part of the reason (as I mentioned above). I am all for encouraging good preparation of a bike at least for safety for yourself and your fellow competitors.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In other words, if you broke early on, at least you can get back in the game and salvage the day - but the backup bike should be a limited option, not a often used strategy.
</div></div>Sure understood, but if they lose all of their laps after the a to b bike switch (if the rule were changed to allow the b-bike after the half-way point), then it would probably not be done for strategy, but just to keep riding. In fact I think it would be detrimental to strategy (depending on the number of red flags) since they would have less time to make up for the laps lost (laps scored while riding the a-bike).

From a competition standpoint switching after the half-way point could indeed be a dumb move for the sake of points, but if the team would rather keep racing then maybe that would be OK from everyone else's perspective since they are not gaining an advantage. This depends of course on how the rule would be structured, and the creation of potential loopholes or abuses would have to be considered.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It is quite possible this rule could revised in the future to accomodate the other scenarios folks are bringing up, but even so it would not happen midseason - it's important to keep things consistent during the season.
</div></div>Agreed. I assume that typically a mid-season rule change of any sort is not likely unless it is a major safety issue or something like that. I think that this is something the BOD could consider for next year however.

Besides, Tom will do a stellar job of preparing the bike and we will not have to deal with this again, right Tom? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

BTW thanks for the input on this question. I know that tone does not always come through on a BBS post but I hope you know I want to understand the rationale behind the rule and if it might be possible to change it later. It is intended to be a constructive discussion.

jroberts5407
04-27-2005, 03:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...and was intended more as a way to force the issue on preperation and racing with "the horse that you brought".
</div></div>Yep makes sense, I thought that was possibly part of the reason (as I mentioned above). I am all for encouraging good preparation of a bike at least for safety for yourself and your fellow competitors.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In other words, if you broke early on, at least you can get back in the game and salvage the day - but the backup bike should be a limited option, not a often used strategy.
</div></div>Sure understood, but if they lose all of their laps after the a to b bike switch (if the rule were changed to allow the b-bike after the half-way point), then it would probably not be done for strategy, but just to keep riding. In fact I think it would be detrimental to strategy (depending on the number of red flags) since they would have less time to make up for the laps lost (laps scored while riding the a-bike).

From a competition standpoint switching after the half-way point could indeed be a dumb move for the sake of points, but if the team would rather keep racing then maybe that would be OK from everyone else's perspective since they are not gaining an advantage. This depends of course on how the rule would be structured, and the creation of potential loopholes or abuses would have to be considered.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It is quite possible this rule could revised in the future to accomodate the other scenarios folks are bringing up, but even so it would not happen midseason - it's important to keep things consistent during the season.
</div></div>Agreed. I assume that typically a mid-season rule change of any sort is not likely unless it is a major safety issue or something like that. I think that this is something the BOD could consider for next year however.

Besides, Tom will do a stellar job of preparing the bike and we will not have to deal with this again, right Tom? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

BTW thanks for the input on this question. I know that tone does not always come through on a BBS post but I hope you know I want to understand the rationale behind the rule and if it might be possible to change it later. It is intended to be a constructive discussion.

Steve Breen
04-27-2005, 04:49 PM
Most certainly a good discussion, John.

You might consider bringing this up again near the end of the season when rulebook changes are being pondered.

Steve Breen
04-27-2005, 04:49 PM
Most certainly a good discussion, John.

You might consider bringing this up again near the end of the season when rulebook changes are being pondered.

Tom Anderson
04-27-2005, 06:15 PM
John did a better job of articulating what I think also.
I think one thing that begs attention is the preparation aspect. This bike ran the whole season last season with zero problems (must have been "our turn" this race)- and made it more than half way with no issues. After half way, we started having issues, and found simple solutions to the problem.
I guess my point is that a bike that was not well prepared, would more likely break early rather than late...

Thanks for the feedback Bryan and Steve, I appreciate the discussion and answers.

Tom Anderson
04-27-2005, 06:15 PM
John did a better job of articulating what I think also.
I think one thing that begs attention is the preparation aspect. This bike ran the whole season last season with zero problems (must have been "our turn" this race)- and made it more than half way with no issues. After half way, we started having issues, and found simple solutions to the problem.
I guess my point is that a bike that was not well prepared, would more likely break early rather than late...

Thanks for the feedback Bryan and Steve, I appreciate the discussion and answers.